A family of <i>rhomboid</i>-like genes: <i>Drosophila rhomboid-1</i> and <i>roughoid/rhomboid-3</i> cooperate to activate EGF receptor signaling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As in mammals, the Drosophila EGF receptor controls many aspects of growth and development. The rate limiting component of Drosophila Egfr signaling is Rhomboid, a seven transmembrane domain protein, whose expression prefigures Egfr signaling. Little is known about the molecular mechanism of Rhomboid function but genetic evidence suggests that it controls the activation of the ligand Spitz, a TGFalpha-like factor. Spitz/Egfr signaling regulates cell determination in the eye but here there is no apparent function for Rhomboid, an observation that casts doubt on this prevailing model of Rhomboid function. We describe our identification of six new rhomboid-like genes in Drosophila, and a large family of related genes present in organisms as diverse as bacteria and mammals; a human rhomboid homolog has also recently been described. Drosophila rhomboid-3 corresponds to the roughoid mutation; it cooperates with rhomboid-1 to control Egfr signaling in the eye, thereby solving the puzzle of the apparent lack of Rhomboid-1 function there. Rhomboid-1 and Roughoid/Rhomboid-3 act in the signal-emitting not signal-receiving cell, supporting the idea that Spitz activation is regulated by Rhomboid-like molecules.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".